Congress should pass a bill that closes the corporate jet loophole that Obama has been whining about so loudly. As a kicker the language should include an absolute limit on government financed presidential travel -- about 2/3rds of whatever Obama and Company spent of our tax dollars on his various "working vacations" and golf junkets in fiscal 2010. That oughta make 'em howl.

Of course it's virtuous. The Obama stash needs some cash. Of course that ain't the stash that this woman is talking about Obama Stash That stash comes from taxpayers. So it the stash that gets the stash from us to give to others. How isn't that virtuous.

1) the Federal Regulations that can kill businesses, and2) the bank loans that provide liquidity to operate businesses, and3)the billion dollar grants of monies to their friends, but nothing to their opponents, and4)the media's slander apparatus that destroys an opponent's good reputation when the Obama wants it signal goes out over Journolist.

The system developed over many years has been a Pay to Play system in DC.

But now Michelle does her rounds and just flies in to collects the money in their new Pay to Survive system.

That is what Steve Wynn was hollering about. The Obama, Inc. system is everywhere being enforced by a fear of fatal attack from the Great Obama I's Empire.

My proposed corporate jet "loophole" closure legislation should also include an absolute limit on government financed travel by the Speaker of the House -- 2/3rds of whatever the bitch Pelosi spent of public money on travel in fiscal 2009.

I believe there are 15000 corporate or private jets in the US. An insignificant number by any measure but for a communist an excellent target to rouse the underclasses' envy and rage at the millionaires and billionaires.

Meanwhile i can assure you that the Obamas will never again in their hopefully long lives ride commercial.

The Lib hypocrisy is a two-sided coin. Not just the "we know we're hurting the environment but we're special" variety, but also the tacit admission that they know the whole thing is bunk. These are the people who put leashes on their children, pass helmet laws for tricycles and send their kids to therapists if they get a B-. If they really thought their own precious kiddoes were going to suffer from the results of CO2, they'd all be living in "sustainable" geodesic domes and using mules for travel.

And beyond the snark there is the not inconsiderable pedestrian fact of all the thousands of well-paid workers (blue/grey/white-collar and the taxes they pay) jobs involved building, maintaining, operating and scheduling such aircraft as well as those who build, staff and maintain the commercial General Aviation (GA) airports they use. And don't forget all the parts manufacturers from airframe to instruments who employ additional thousands of TAXPAYERS as well. THOROUGHLY EVIL PEOPLE ALL by Obama standards..

The United States can no longer put a man in space (unless the Russians say so). The International Space Station is no longer 'international' as access is now totally controlled by the Russians. They've already raised the price of a ride (about $65 million).

The US 'space truck' had many flaws. The air force was something less than a willing partner (funder)from the beginning and, as time went by, many in NASA came to hate the thing as well. It sucked up a huge part of the agency's budget and other programs were screaming, "It's our money and we want it NOW". Oh, well, maybe they can fully fund that Muslim outreach effort.

Space Shuttle - manned access to low earth orbit. Given up.

Saturn V - the greatest heavy lifter or all time and the only LV to put men beyond low earth orbit. Given up.

The USA owned manned space flight for over 40 years and we pissed it all away. If we ever get back to the moon or go to Mars, we'll have to ask Russia or China for permission to land.

Saturn V - the greatest heavy lifter or all time and the only LV to put men beyond low earth orbit. Given up.

Space X's Falcon Heavy is, as far as I know, is both the greatest heavy lift rocket and one of the most recent (ie, not using 60's tech). If we would approach orbit like we did railroads crossing the continent (minus the "barons") we would be able to command a huge share of the orbit market that is only going to grow.

The USA owned manned space flight for over 40 years and we pissed it all away.

Much like we're doing with combat air superiority. Oh, we've still go it for now, but we're letting other catch up. If we give things like this up willingly, we deserve what comes of it.

I’m fine with eliminating any tax deductions for corporate jets as a business expense. IMO they’re less to do with actually supporting the bottom line of the company than a perq that some higher level executives demand and receive as part of their status. In an age of global communications and video/web-based teleconferencing, I don’t think that executives need to travel as much as they do and I’m fine with rolling back or even eliminating a deduction for what seems to me to be a frivolity.

That being said, I’m more concerned with the amount of my tax dollars that the federal government – particularly members of Congress and the President spend on needless travel junkets. The trip that FLOTUS took to Spain with a bunch of her friends (who supposedly traveled on their own dime) in which she justified it by squeezing in a few meetings with dignitaries is the sort of thing where if a drug company sent a doctor on a trip like that, the DOJ would be all over their you-know-what screaming “kickback” and “inducement.”

I’d like to see a bill that (a) cuts federal travel particularly for members of Congress and the White House and their entourages by half or more, (b) requires that any trip in which less than 90 percent of the waking hours are NOT spent doing actual work must be reimbursed personally and (c) anyone who isn’t working for the government on that trip 90 percent or more, has to travel and stay separately at their own expense (different airplane, different hotel). Any personal travel has to be at their own expense and cannot use any government planes (that includes Air Force One for campaign junkets even when their campaign is supposedly reimbursing the taxpayer for their use).

Even Obama supporter Warren Buffet pointed out the stupidity of the corporate jet posturing.

Don't be fooled into thinking that's for any reason besides the fact that Berkshire Hathaway owns NetJets. If it didn't, he'd be right there alongside Obama, nodding his head in agreement. Buffet's only principle is the bottom line. Another example is the estate tax. He supports high "death taxes" solely because it helps him acquire value businesses on the cheap. How do you think Dairy Queen and the Buffalo news "fell" into his lap?

I know everybody else gets the wamr-fuzzies from him, but Warren Buffet gives me the creeps...

We saw with Speaker Pelosi and both of the Obamas why we need to limit government travel by private jet. Sure, the President needs AF-1 for a lot of reasons. It makes a big statement when it flies into any other country.

But that is not how the Obamas are using it. Rather, they use it to tie up rush hour traffic in LA for a fund raiser, or for a night out in Manhattan.

The idea that the tax payers should fund Pelosi flying back to her district in an upgraded jet every weekend was just ludicrous. I think that it is instructive that Speaker Boehner (and his security) fly commercial. Yet it is the Democrats who rail against evil corporate jets.

As to Mrs. Obama - WTF do we expect. Flying her entourage to Spain last summer, and using a government jet to pop over to Aspen to pick up rent, I mean political contribution, checks.

Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and others of their political persuasion are typical "I got mine Jack" life-boaters.: We're in the lifeboat and now we want to be sure no one else joins us--don't want it to capsize, now--so lets change all the tax laws to punish successful up & comers..

I’d like to see a bill that (a) cuts federal travel particularly for members of Congress and the White House and their entourages by half or more, (b) requires that any trip in which less than 90 percent of the waking hours are NOT spent doing actual work must be reimbursed personally and (c) anyone who isn’t working for the government on that trip 90 percent or more, has to travel and stay separately at their own expense (different airplane, different hotel). Any personal travel has to be at their own expense and cannot use any government planes (that includes Air Force One for campaign junkets even when their campaign is supposedly reimbursing the taxpayer for their use).

Support!

The crazy part is...we aren't even allowed to know how much we spend when the first family decides to go on progress. It is all hidden behind a veil of "security concerns".

On the one hand, I just can't get all that fired up about tax loopholes for corporate jets or oil exploration. In the scheme of things, we just aren't talking all that much money. So, sure, give the Dems their targets, and close those "loopholes".

And, closing the corporate jet one would be esp. delicious, since my bet is that a significant majority of corporate jet users voted for Obama.

Why? How do you think that Hollywood people gets around? By private jet, invariably owned by some company, and usually one of theirs. Those Manhattan lawyers and stockbrokers who fly to Montana on weekends to ranch? Mostly Obama voters. And those corporate CEOs? I would think that a lot of them who demand their own jet to take a job, are also into the corporate cronyism gig. Anyone think that Jeffry Immelt flies commercial?

On the other hand, there are real business reasons for using a private jet. The time of the CEO of a company can really be that valuable, and esp. if you are flying to and from non-hub airports. I burned a long day flying to Las Vegas for a 2 hour meeting and back a couple of weeks ago. If I had a corporate jet, I could have done it in less than 4 hours.

My time isn't that valuable, obviously. But Jeffry Immelt's time? Just as obviously it is, so he can have enough time left over to help President Obama save the economy. Indeed, think of all the green energy and TARP money that his company has managed to acquire as a result of his being at the President's beck and call. And then compare that to the cost of the GE corporate jet he would most likely be using to get to D.C. and back. Pretty good investment on the part of his employer, if you ask me.

I think, in the end, I would probably come out in favor of eliminating the tax deductibility of corporate jets used for employee travel and the like, just to remove it as a Democratic talking point, and to have all those Democratic pols have to go to their patrons and explain why the former pushed so hard to take this away from the later.

The idea that the tax payers should fund Pelosi flying back to her district in an upgraded jet every weekend was just ludicrous. I think that it is instructive that Speaker Boehner (and his security) fly commercial.

In defense of (thankfully) former Speaker Pelosi, I think the issue was that as third in succession for the Presidency, there were very few jets that would enable her to fly from her home district in San Francisco to DC without having to stop for refueling. Speaker Boehner (being from Ohio) has more options available to him to make a nonstop trip. YMMV to what extent this is a legitimate security concern but I don’t think it’s entirely frivolous.

In defense of (thankfully) former Speaker Pelosi, I think the issue was that as third in succession for the Presidency, there were very few jets that would enable her to fly from her home district in San Francisco to DC without having to stop for refueling.

I have flown from Michigan to Hong Kong without refueling. So this explanation doesn't make any sense.

Also, what does being third in line from the presidency have to do with refueling?

The central problem with the Space Shuttle was that it was allowed to live 25 years too long. The problem with the ISS is that it was a stupid, overly complicated, overly expensive design adopted entirely for political reasons over the objections of the expert panel of technical advisors.

There is no tragedy today; we haven't had either an experimental-exploration manned space program or routine space access at any point in the last 25 years.

@Thorley, I'm close enough to the top of the ladder to see the time demands on senior executives. I think you're simply wrong about corporate jets being "just a perq." The time spent waiting in TSA's lines would be a significant drain on a very limited resource.

Just because Obama thinks that all he or anybody else has to do is play golf all day long, doesn't make it so.

@Colonel Mustard, regarding American's decision to buy Airbus -- is is not a rational response to the proclivity of Boeing's Washington-based work force to got on protracted strikes? American needs to know that if it signs a contract for X number of jets to be delivered a particular future date, that that date is very likely to be met? American doesn't want to have to place an order and then put a task force in place to figure out what to do if Boeing's workers go on strike.

For many the idea of eliminating incentives to own jets seems to resonate nicely. I think you like the idea of a corporate fat cat having to line up at TSA with the rest of us.

I, on the other hand, am a right winger of the first order and the first thing that comes to my mind is that such a move fucks the poor. I am delighted to think of all those greasy bastards at the private airports who will have to look for work elsewhere. They have these dinky ass jobs and these dinky ass wives and public school children. They can go fuck themselves. They will feel a lot better when they are not working for The Man don't you think?

When I hear a noble guy like Obama talking about the fat cats I like to think he is really thinking with me about all the dipshit guys working in jobs that didn't require a college education, guys with dirty hands that are fixing to get their walking papers.

Thorley - "In defense of (thankfully) former Speaker Pelosi, I think the issue was that as third in succession for the Presidency, there were very few jets that would enable her to fly from her home district in San Francisco to DC without having to stop for refueling. Speaker Boehner (being from Ohio) has more options."=================There really is no defense from either a practical standpoint - or the legitimacy of the present Presidental succession scheme itself.

1. Pelosi could claim priority refueling status if Bush and Cheney both dropped dead when she was Speaker.

2. The joke of an unlected by the people opposition party House hack being 3rd in line? Or by laughable tradition the oldest Senator still able to speak their own name being 4th in succession? As big a flaw as the filabuster and lifetime appointments of Fed judges.

I don't understand Obama's attitude on corp. jet usage. Shortly after he was inaugurated the Democrats held a "retreat" at colonial Williamsburg, 153 miles south of Washington, D.C. Obama attended via AF-One, which supposedly operates at a cost of $10,000 per minute. His address was carried live by Fox News, the only media to cover it, and featured him stating that AF-One was a "very nice way to travel, very nice". He could have used Marine One at a fraction of the cost. On a side note, it was evident that those assembled had been drinking for some time as they paid little attention to his speech. A total waste.

It reminds me of a few months back, when we were undergoing the Great Air Traffic Controller Scare, when air traffic controllers were falling asleep and doing other dumb stuff rather than safely guiding planes.

It came out that even Michelle Obama's plane had recently suffered from poor flight controlling, as so many of us had.

The solution to this national crisis? Mrs Obama would from now on get a supervisor to guide her plane.